Popular physics - The Nebra disk

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sbrothy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disk Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Nebra disk and its interpretation as evidence of early supernova observations, as presented in a paper by R.G. Pizzone. Participants express varying opinions on the paper's validity, its appeal to non-experts, and its place within the broader context of popular physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the paper's brevity and pedagogical style may attract an audience that is not typically engaged with astronomy.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the paper's claims, comparing it to arguments that could suggest the moon is transparent, indicating a belief that the paper lacks rigorous peer review.
  • Another participant notes that while the paper may be seen as spurious, it still stimulates imagination and curiosity, drawing a parallel to other questionable scientific claims.
  • A later post highlights a specific claim from the paper regarding the Auriga line, questioning the confidence of the authors and suggesting a lack of rigorous validation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not agree on the validity of the paper, with some expressing skepticism and others acknowledging its imaginative appeal. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the paper's scientific merit.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the paper's lack of peer review and its potential appeal to a non-specialist audience, indicating a concern about the quality of claims made without rigorous validation.

sbrothy
Gold Member
Messages
1,465
Reaction score
1,333
TL;DR
Archaeological evidence of first supernova sighting way before BCE
Popular Physics.

"Evidences of the earliest Supernova observation in the Nebra disk
R.G. Pizzone"

---- https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07411I know this isn't exactly breaking news and I cannot comment of the quality or validity of the research, but I've found that due to the brevity of the paper and it's pedagoical execution it has a tendency to draw in an audience not normally interested in astronomy.

And with that I mean barely literate people who nevertheless enjoy the drawings and continuity of the religious awe of the event.

It may have been a little overlooked?

Regards,
Søren

[Should maybe have ben posted in the general forum. I couldn't find an archaeology or spurious forum. :). As alway,s, feel free to move. Goes without saying I know.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dongcheng
Astronomy news on Phys.org
sbrothy said:
It may have been a little overlooked?

My reaction was "Every time someone say we don't need peer-review, someone posts a paper like this on the arXiv."

The exact same argument could be used to prove that back then the moon was transparent. You can see stars shine right through it!
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's why I wrote it might fit better in a "spurious" (or perhaps even "gratitious" forum). But still, it does trigger the imagination and curiosity. Although I imagine the same could be said of some perpetuum mobile contraption.

Popular physics indeed.

[EDIT: In fact, the paper reminds me a little of Erich von Daniken :)]
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
Erich von Daniken
1597678233060.png
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur, sbrothy and Ibix
Heh. :) very apt.
 
I'm sure you're gonna love this one @Vanadium 50 :)

An Astronomical Interpretation of the Nebra Sky Disc

As I'm not sure you'll deign to actually read it, I'll serve up this incredibly self-secure tidbit from the paper for your amusement:

"Our ideas about the use of the Auriga line is probably correct."

Really now? Self-secure much?

Is that what you'd call "auto-peer-review"? :P
 
Last edited: